NUHW

Judge Rules against SEIU in Fight with another Union

by Ivan Osorio on July 25, 2011 · 1 comment

in Economy, Employment, Labor

A judge has ruled that the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) improperly benefited from an employer threatening workers with loss of raises in a 2010 election in California that pitted it against a breakaway SEIU local. The election was to determine whether 43,500 Kaiser Permanente workers were to be represented by SEIU, the former SEIU affiliate, or no union. The Washington Post‘s Alec MacGillis reports:

Administrative Law Judge Lana Parke ruled that Kaiser had improperly withheld pay raises from workers in Southern California who had switched to the new union and that SEIU had then improperly threatened the workers voting in the Northern California election that they, too, could have raises denied if they made the switch.

Leaders of the new union, the National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW), decided to split from SEIU in response to what they perceived as a power grab by the SEIU national headquarters, then under the leadership of Andy Stern.

Stern sought to consolidate several locals into a handful of giant mega-locals, a strategy that led to a series of embarrassing setbacks for the SEIU, including the split that created the breakaway NUHW and a corruption scandal in Los Angeles.

MacGillis further states:

Leaders of the breakaway union noted that the ruling came at the same time as SEIU and other unions are arguing in favor of new rules proposed by the labor relations board to reduce employer coercion against workers before union elections.

However, for NUHW to portray this incident as a case of employer intimidation is disingenuous. Kaiser’s conduct may hardly be exemplary, but its real fight was with SEIU, which has a history of making deals with employers without members’ input, and has tried to intimidate NUHW through strong-arm tactics ever since it became an independent union.

For more on the internecine SEIU fight and its related scandals, see here and here.

The Dead Weight Loss of Union Disputes

by Ivan Osorio on September 14, 2010

in Economy, Employment, Labor

At Reason Hit & Run, Tim Cavanaugh provides a good observation on the ongoing dispute between the powerful Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and its breakaway local, National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW), which entered a new phase yesterday, as voting began at Kaiser Permanente facilities in Northern California, for workers to decide whether to be represented by SEIU, NUHW, or no union at all.

NUHW president Sal Rosselli, who used to head SEIU’s affiliate in Oakland, has loudly complained of the SEIU national leadership’s efforts to forcibly merge his local with a scandal-ridden Los Angeles-based local. He’s got a good point. However, as Cavanaugh points out, in terms of the broader economy,  SEIU and NUHW are essentially fighting over the deck furniture on the Titanic.

[I]t’s not clear how having more choice in union leadership decisions would do much to end the exploitation of the proletariat. The more time you spend choosing between Rosselli and [SEIU President Mary Kay] Henry, the less time you have to, maybe, build some value for the people who pay you 100 percent of your income (not counting moonlighting), or even check out Craigslist to find a better job.

Even worse, your union dues may actually hurt your future job prospects, as they go to help elect and reelect politicians who support economically destructive policies intended to keep unions afloat.

For more on the SEIU-NUHW dispute, see here and here.

For more on SEIU, see here and here.

Two Health Care Unions Battle Each Other for Members

by Ivan Osorio on September 13, 2010 · 2 comments

in Economy, Employment, Labor

Voting began today in one of the most disputed union elections in recent years. The contest pits the powerful Service Employees International Union (SEIU) against the upstart National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW), which was created last year by former officials of a SEIU affiliate in Oakland, California. At stake are 44,000 at Kaiser Permanente health care facilities throughout Northern California.

SEIU’s national leadership placed its Oakland affiliate, United Healthcare Workers-West (UHW), in trusteeship in January 2009, alleging “financial wrongdoing” by then-UHW President Sal Rosselli. In response, Rosselli accused then-SEIU President Andrew Stern of using trusteeship to forcibly seize his local and merge it with a scandal-ridden Los Angeles-based local, whose president, Tyrone Freeman, had stepped down amid serious corruption allegations.

SEIU suffered a loss to NUHW in Southern California in January, so the current contest is major test for SEIU’s new national president, Mary Kay Henry, who took over from her notorious predecessor Andy Stern last May. Henry seems committed to this fight, and for good reason. She worked alongside Stern during his tenure as president, and helped to implement some of his more controversial policies, including his efforts to create a handful of giant mega-locals, through mergers such as the one imposed on SEIU’s California health care affiliates.

Union power struggles are nothing new, and, as in most, the dispute between SEIU and NUHW has its share of egos. But this fight also centers on the future of unionism in the private sector, where organized labor is a fading force. To revive unions’ sagging private sector numbers, SEIU, under Stern’s leadership, has pursued a strategy of increasing union “density,” which entails increasing the number of union members in the overall workforce to gain greater clout in negotiations. This often has meant compromising on contract terms to lessen employer resistance.

Rosselli, by contrast, has preferred to drive a hard bargain to gain the best contract terms for existing members, even while trying to organize new ones. Throughout this conflict, Henry worked alongside Stern to pursue the goal of greater “density,” which Rosselli has derided as “organizing workers for the sake of numbers.”

Whichever strategy wins out, it’s safe to say that the leaders of SEIU and NUHW can agree on at least one thing: support for the so-called Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which can help both their goals. EFCA’s card check provision would both allow unions to organize members more easily by effectively eliminating the secret ballot in organizing elections, while its binding arbitration provision would allow union negotiators to drive a harder bargain in the expectation that after 120 days a federally appointed arbitrator could step in to impose an agreement that is bound to be no worse for the union than management’s final offer.

Voting ends on October 4 and the vote count begins two days later. This is a contest well worth watching.

For more on SEIU, see here, here, here, and here.

SEIU’s California Scheming V

by Ivan Osorio on November 12, 2009

in Labor, Politics as Usual

The bitter ongoing fight between the national leadership of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the former leadership of a SEIU Oakland, California, health care workers local has taken an even nastier turn.

Early this year, SEIU, under the leadership of Andy Stern, forced a merger between the Oakland health care local, United Healthcare Workers-West (UHW), and a Los Angeles-area local where a major corruption scandal broke last year — leading that local’s chief, Stern ally Tyrone Freeman, to resign.

In response to the Stern-led SEIU bullying, UHW president Sal Rosselli broke with SEIU and formed a new union, the National Union of United Healthcare Workers (NUHW). Since its founding, NUHW has tried to attract workers disgruntled with SEIU, which has fought back, hard. Last Friday, November 6, NUHW filed a complaint with the California Public Employment Relations Board, alleging voter intimidation and vote tampering by SEIU representatives in a June decertification election, reports, The Wall Street Journal.

The allegations are ugly. As the Journal‘s Matthew Kaminski further explains: 

The NUHW immediately called for a re-run of the election, challenging voting irregularities. The two unions have traded accusations since. But now, Carlos Martinez, an immigrant from El Salvador who was on the SEIU’s staff during the campaign, has come forward—so he says—to blow the whistle on his employer. Mr. Martinez went door-to-door canvassing the home-care workers during the 15-day election. Like him, many of them are native Spanish speakers; some are illiterate.

… Mr. Martinez says he was instructed by superiors to tell the workers that if they voted against the SEIU, they could lose their medical benefits, see their green cards or citizenship revoked and possibly be deported. He says he and other staffers were also told to pressure voters to spoil ballots that had been filled out for the NUHW. In other instances he filled ballots out for them. He says he even took some to the post office, as did other SEIU campaign workers.

All of these actions, if true, are a violation of state or federal laws governing union elections. In all, he adds, he visited 550 homes. “We scared people. We took the secret ballot away from these people,” he says. “It was wrong.”

SEIU has denied these allegations. SEIU needs to make its case, but its own recent history of trying to intimidate opponents will make doing so very difficult before any fair-minded audience.

For more on SEIU, see here.